Abstract:In recent years, both embryonic and adult stem cells have aroused tremendous interest over their potential applications in human regenerative medicine.1–3 A key consideration in stem cell transplantation therapy is the differentiation status of the stem cells being transplanted. This issue has largely been ignored in the majority of transplantation studies in animal models and phase I human clinical trials. The differentiation status of transplanted stem cells or their derivatives is likely to profoundly influence several factors that determine their ability to contribute to tissue/organ regeneration within the recipient. These various factors are summarized in Table 1, and each will be critically examined in turn.Table 1: Comparison of the Transplantation of Undifferentiated Stem Cells vs. Their Differentiated DerivativesIt is a well known fact that undifferentiated human embryonic stem (hES) cells form teratomas upon transplantation into immunologically compromised animal models.4 Teratoma formation obviously would be detrimental to the transplant recipient. Hence, for human clinical therapy, it is imperative that hES cells are differentiated to some degree before transplantation so as to reduce the likelihood of teratoma formation in situ.5,6 Undifferentiated adult stem cells lack the ability to form teratomas but could instead undergo nonspecific multilineage differentiation in vitro.7,8 This is likely to reduce the clinical efficacy of transplantation therapy because only a subfraction of the transplanted stem cells would have differentiated into the required tissue lineage. Further complications may arise from the pathologic state of damaged or diseased tissues/organs providing an “abnormal” milieu for undifferentiated stem cells. The presence of necrotic/apoptotic cells,9 free radicals,10 and inflammatory cytokines11 within the pathologic environment may very well exert an adverse effect on the differentiation pathway of the transplanted stem cells. This could further reduce the proportion of transplanted cells giving rise to the required lineage of interest, as well as result in the formation of undesired tissue lineages at the transplantation site, which could impair tissue/organ regeneration. For example, in the study of Wang et al.,12 the transplantation of undifferentiated mesenchymal stem cells into the pathologic environment of damaged cardiac muscles resulted in the differentiation of some of these cells into fibroblastic scar tissue, which could in turn impair recovery of heart function after myocardial infarction. Undifferentiated stem cells may also lack expression of specific cell surface markers that could facilitate their rapid engraftment and integration within the recipient tissue or organ, i.e., gap junction connexin proteins or surface ligands for interaction with extracellular matrix. Hence, there is a strong likelihood that some degree of differentiation of stem cells in vitro to allow expression of such surface markers may enhance their engraftment efficiency and subsequent integration in situ, thereby improving the clinical efficacy of transplantation therapy. Nevertheless, there are a number of factors that would discourage the use of differentiated stem cell derivatives in transplantation therapy. In the case of autologous adult stem cells, directed differentiation into specific lineages is likely to require prolonged durations of exvivo culture. This would obviously delay treatment to the patient who is likely to be in dire need of therapeutic intervention. There is also evidence that prolonged durations of ex vivo culture could somehow alter the immunogenicity of cultured autologous cells, which may lead to immunorejection upon transplantation.13,14 It can certainly be argued that genetic modulation with recombinant DNA technology could potentially offer a “rapid” and efficient means of directing autologous adult stem cell commitment and differentiation into a required lineage,15,16 without the need for prolonged ex vivo culture. There are, however, overwhelming safety concerns with regard to the application of genetic manipulation in human clinical therapy.17 Differentiated stem cells may also have a reduced proliferative capacity, which could impair their ability to contribute to tissue/organ regeneration. By committing or differentiating stem cells into specific lineages before transplantation, there could be a loss in their ability to give rise to other lineages that might also be beneficial to tissue/organ regeneration, in particular, the vascular endothelial lineage. This is best illustrated by the transplantation of undifferentiated mesenchymal stem cells for the repair of myocardially infarcted hearts. The transplanted stem cells gave rise not only to the cardiomyogenic lineage18 but also to the vascular endothelial lineage.19 The resultant increased angiogenesis appears to play a crucial role in myocardial regeneration.20 Differentiated derivatives of stem cells are also likely to be much more fastidious in their nutritional and oxygen requirement, which could compromise their ability to survive in the adverse pathologic environment of damaged/diseased tissues or organs. This is particularly the case with cell lineages of highly vascularized tissues/organs, such as the myocardium and liver. Indeed, the transplantation of fully differentiated cardiomyocytes and hepatocytes is severely hindered by the ischemic environment present within pathologic heart and liver models, which often leads to an extremely low survival and engraftment rate of the transplanted cells.21,22 Another major factor that would discourage the use of differentiated stem cell derivatives is their higher degree of immunogenicity, in the case of allogenic models of transplantation. It is well established that undifferentiated hES cells have low levels of expression of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I and II antigens.23 There is a gradual upregulation in the expression of MHC antigens by hES cells with increased degree of differentiation.23,24 Hence, transplantation of hES derivatives, at early stages of differentiation, would be expected to provoke a much milder immunologic reaction compared with hES derivatives at later stages of differentiation. In the case of undifferentiated bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells, these have been reported to be both immunoprivileged25 as well as immunosuppressive,26,27 which would favor the use of these cells in allogenic transplantation. As with ES cells, a gradual upregulation of MHC expression by mesenchymal stem cells with increased degree of differentiation25 has also been reported. Hence, it would appear that a major issue of contention in stem cell transplantation medicine is the choice of transplanting undifferentiated stem cells or their differentiated derivatives. Each of these has advantages and disadvantages. Probably there exists a subtle balance somewhere between the undifferentiated and fully differentiated state, which would be optimal for achieving maximal efficacy of stem cell transplantation therapy. This would be expected to differ for different tissue and organ models of transplantation. At present, this particular aspect of stem cell transplantation has not been well studied. More exhaustive investigations should be carried out in this area of research, in view of its potentially important clinical implications.

Abstract:To the Editor: In recent years, adult stem cells have attracted much attention over their potential applications in regenerative medicine.1,2 This encompasses all stem cells derived from the postnatal state, not the adult body only, and hence would also include umbilical cord blood–derived stem cells.3 Compared with embryonic and fetal stem cells, the application of adult stem cells in clinical therapy is much less ethically contentious.4 Moreover, adult stem cells from an autologous source would also circumvent the immunological barrier in clinical transplantation and negate the need for human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching,5 as in the case of embryonic and fetal stem cells, which are invariably derived from an allogenic source. Of the diverse array of adult stem cells that have so far been identified, those derived from the bone marrow and umbilical cord blood appear particularly attractive for a number of reasons. Compared with other adult stem cell subpopulations that are relatively scarce and difficult to extract from the human body, these are relatively abundant and easy to isolate.6,7 Moreover, previous studies have also demonstrated that adult stem cells derived from the bone marrow and umbilical cord blood have relatively high proliferative capacity and regenerative potential as well as a more extensive multi-lineage differentiation potential compared with other adult stem cell types.1,6,7 Both these subpopulations of adult stem cells have their inherent advantages and limitations in clinical therapy. For example, several studies have demonstrated an age-related decline in the proliferative capacity and regenerative potential of mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) extracted from bone marrow, which could limit their therapeutic usefulness in older patients.8,9 Presumably, no such limitation exists for stem cells derived from the umbilical cord blood because these are putatively in the neonatal state. Moreover, millions of new births every day produce an excess of discarded human umbilical cord,10 thus making stem cells extracted from these much more abundant and readily available compared with bone marrow–derived MSC. Nevertheless, it must be noted that umbilical cord blood–derived stem cells must be from an allogenic source, unless these were deliberately cryopreserved and stored for a particular newborn individual. Hence, there is ultimately the prospect of immunological rejection on transplantation or transfusion, unlike the case of autologous MSC derived from the bone marrow. Additionally, MSC have also been demonstrated to have immunoprivileged status and immunomodulatory properties11,12 absent in other adult stem cell subpopulations, thus making them ideally suited for transplantation therapy. A novel strategy may therefore be to combine and synergize the complementary therapeutic advantages of umbilical cord blood and bone marrow–derived stem cells in regenerative medicine. This may be achieved either through co-transplantation of both cell types locally at the same site or by simultaneous localized transplantation with transfusion into the peripheral circulation.13 Already, a number of studies have reported that co-transplantation of bone marrow–derived MSC enhanced the engraftment of umbilical cord blood–derived hematopoietic stem cells.14–16 However, all these studies were performed on immunologically deficient NOD/SCID mice,14–16 and it remains unclear whether co-transplantation could yield such a beneficial effect in the presence of an active immune system. The most obvious advantage of co-transplanting bone marrow derived–MSC with umbilical cord blood stem cells is that this could somehow make up for the shortfall in the total numbers of viable MSC that can be extracted from older patients because a certain threshold number of transplanted cells are probably required to achieve optimal efficacy of tissue/organ regeneration. Moreover, the putative neonatal state of umbilical cord blood–derived stem cells can also compensate for the age-related decline in the proliferative capacity and regenerative potential of MSC derived from older patients.8,9 Nevertheless, the major challenge would be to overcome immunological rejection against allogenic umbilical cord blood–derived stem cells. Even with extensive banking of umbilical cord blood–derived stem cells, it is virtually impossible to achieve a perfect HLA match,17 unless that particular individual’s umbilical cord blood cells had been cryopreserved and stored since birth. In this respect, bone marrow–derived MSC could prove particularly useful because these have been demonstrated to possess immunosuppressive properties.11,12 Hence, it is possible that transplanted autologous MSC may mitigate immunological rejection against co-transplanted umbilical cord blood–derived stem cells at the transplantation site. Once adequate tissue/organ regeneration has been achieved and the immunosuppressive effects of the co-transplanted MSC have worn off (i.e., through differentiation), then the engrafted allogenic umbilical cord blood stem cells may gradually be killed off by the recipient’s immune system while being replaced by proliferating autologous cells (i.e., co-transplanted MSC). Another possibility is that differentiated lineages may still retain the immuno-modulatory properties of their MSC precursors, as demonstrated by a recent study from our research group.18 Hence, there may be long-term tolerance induction of the allogenic umbilical cord blood cells through the immunomodulatory action of the co-transplanted autologous MSC. Certainly, it can be argued that immunosuppressive drugs can be used instead of co-transplanted MSC. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that the administration of such drugs often have various adverse side effects on patients.19 Moreover, the concentrated localized immunomodulatory effect of co-transplanted MSC at one particular site is preferable to the holistic effect of immunosuppressive drug administration. It may also be worthwhile to look at the possibility of co-transplanting differentiated progenies of allogenic umbilical cord blood stem cells with autologous MSC. The rationale is that paracrine signaling and cellular contacts provided by such differentiated progenies may result in a more conducive environment for directing co-transplanted autologous MSC into a required lineage at the transplantation site, since the natural milieu may already be compromised by the pathological state of the diseased/damaged tissue or organ requiring transplantation therapy. It must be noted that because umbilical cord blood stem cells are from a donated allogenic source, an extended period of time is available to differentiate them into a particular lineage before transplantation. By contrast, such an option is rarely available in the case of autologous MSC because of the urgency of life-saving treatment for the patient. Hence, in this manner, differentiated progenies of umbilical cord blood stem cells can possibly be used as “cellular catalysts” to promote the appropriate differentiation of co-transplanted autologous MSC in situ, which could in turn enhance their subsequent engraftment and integration within recipient tissues/organs. Nevertheless, as highlighted in our previous article,20 there are various challenges faced with transplanting differentiated cells, such as their lower proliferative capacity, higher antigenicity, and more complex nutritional requirement, which in turn could compromise their survival within the adverse pathological environment of the transplantation site. Hence, it is imperative to find a subtle balance somewhere between the undifferentiated and fully differentiated state20 of umbilical cord blood–derived stem cells that would be optimal for co-transplantation with MSC. Besides co-transplantation, an alternative strategy may be to carry out simultaneous transplantation and transfusion of both stem cell types.13 In this case, hematopoietic stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood could be more suited for transfusion, whereas bone marrow–derived MSC could be more suited for transplantation in situ at the site of tissue/organ damage. Perhaps it may be worthwhile for both stem cell types to be committed to different lineages. For example, the repair of a myocardially infarcted heart would require both the regeneration of damaged cardiac muscles as well as neovascularization.21 Hence, it could be advantageous to transplant cardiomyocyte precursors derived from bone marrow MSC22 directly in situ within the damaged myocardium, while at the same time transfusing endothelial progenitors23 derived from umbilical cord blood into the peripheral circulation. In this case, the use of recombinant DNA transfection24 or other newly developed technology for gene modulation such as protein transduction domains fusion transcription factors25,26 may obviate the need for extended durations of ex vivo culture to achieve lineage commitment. The recent identification and characterization of various chemokines and cytokines involved in stem cell migration and homing open up an exciting possibility for their application in transplantation/transfusion therapy.27,28 For example, the transplanted MSC may be delivered on tissue-engineered scaffolds that are designed for the controlled release of specific homing factors such as SDF-1.29 Another alternative may be to stimulate or genetically modulate the transplanted MSC to copiously secrete homing factors such as SDF-129 to encourage the migration and homing of transfused umbilical cord blood stem cells within the peripheral circulation. At the same time, it may also be advantageous to prestimulate the transfused umbilical cord blood stem cells to strongly express surface receptors specific to homing factors such as SDF-1. Of particular interest would be CXCR-4. In the seminal study of Peled et al.,30 it was demonstrated that pretreatment with stem cell factor and interleukin-6 upregulated CXCR-4 expression on CD34+ cells, which in turn potentiated SDF-1–induced migration and engraftment in primary and secondary transplanted mice. Hence, there are indeed many exciting possibilities in combining and synergizing the therapeutic advantages of allogenic umbilical cord blood–derived stem cells and autologous bone marrow–derived mesenchymal stem cells. This would certainly warrant further investigation.

Comparing the Benefits and Drawbacks of Stem Cell Therapy Based on the Cell Origin or Manipulation Process: Addressing Immunogenicity

The Differentiation Status of Stem Cells and Their Derivatives: A Key Consideration in Transplantation Medicine

Unveiling the immunogenicity of allogeneic mesenchymal stromal cells: Challenges and strategies for enhanced therapeutic efficacy

Allogeneic Vs. Autologous Mesenchymal Stem/stromal Cells in Their Medication Practice

MHC Class I Enables MSCs to Evade NK-Cell-Mediated Cytotoxicity and Exert Immunosuppressive Activity

Twisting Immune Responses for Allogeneic Stem Cell Therapy.

Effects Of Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem Cell Transplantation In The Treatment Of Liver Cirrhosis Caused By Autoimmune Diseases

The Immunogenicity and Immune Tolerance of Pluripotent Stem Cell Derivatives

Immunosuppressive properties of mesenchymal stem cells: advances and applications

CRISPR/Cas9 and AAV mediated insertion of β2 microglobulin-HLA-G fusion gene protects mesenchymal stromal cells from allogeneic rejection and potentiates the use for off-the-shelf cell therapy

The potential of mesenchymal stem cells to induce immune tolerance to allogeneic transplants

Mesenchymal Stem Cells: a Promising Way in Therapies of Graft-Versus-host Disease

Harnessing and honing mesenchymal stem/stromal cells for the amelioration of graft-versus-host disease

Controversies regarding transplantation of mesenchymal stem cells

Trends in cell medicine: from autologous cells to allogeneic universal-use cells for adoptive T-cell therapies

Stem Cell Therapy and Immunological Rejection in Animal Models

Strategies to address mesenchymal stem/stromal cell heterogeneity in immunomodulatory profiles to improve cell-based therapies

Understanding the Immunological Mechanisms of Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Allogeneic Transplantation: From the Aspect of Major Histocompatibility Complex Class I

Characteristics and Immunomodulating Functions of Adipose-Derived and Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Across Defined Human Leukocyte Antigen Barriers

Can the Therapeutic Advantages of Allogenic Umbilical Cord Blood-Derived Stem Cells and Autologous Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Be Combined and Synergized?

Immune Tolerance of Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Induction of Skin Allograft Tolerance